Tank purchases still DEAD

The simplest thing would be to allow AA guns to be moved in the combat phase and used in attack (maybe not at air like in defense, but like an artillery/anti-tank as in German 88s).

The only time it makes sense to build new AA guns is when you have an IC that is just about to be attacked by a lot of planes.  You buy some AA guns hoping to get a shot at each plane (e.g. Moscow, Calcutta) maybe the dice can save your skin.  At $3 this makes sense; at $5 it makes more sense to just buy tanks if you have the money, but often in those situations you don’t have very much money so you buy infantry instead.  That’s why AA guns should be $3.  Changing the price doesn’t change the mechanics of the game.

@variance:

The only time it makes sense to build new AA guns is when you have an IC that is just about to be attacked by a lot of planes.  You buy some AA guns hoping to get a shot at each plane (e.g. Moscow, Calcutta) maybe the dice can save your skin.  At $3 this makes sense; at $5 it makes more sense to just buy tanks if you have the money, but often in those situations you don’t have very much money so you buy infantry instead.  That’s why AA guns should be $3.

So you change the price of a unit just so a defender can be more of a spoiler?  In the scenario you describe it sounds like the defender is in a bad way as it is.  Even at $5 there are still some cases where you get a slightly higher chance of defense if you pick the AA gun over the Tank.  If you’re defending a major IC, in the vast majority of the cases, you already have the starting AA guns there to give yourself a shot at every plane.  For a minor IC, your placement options are limited so you can afford to place an AA gun if you have to.

Yes, your placement odds are limited, so perhaps a Tank or Infantry (that has a die roll every round it lives) is better than buying an AA gun that is a one shot deal at 3 planes.

Is the aa gun at 5$ never a good buy?  Suppose you are playing low luck, and India is being threatened with like 18 planes, and you already have 3 aa guns.  Is it better to get 3 more guns (thus guarenteeing 3 aa hits) or buy 5 more infantry?  If it’s the latter, there is a good case for reducing the price of aa guns to 4.  But I’m not sure the infantry is better since the guns will kill 1-2 more planes AND they will be fodder in the first round of the battle.  The infantry will kill 1-2 more planes the first round, but the 1-2 planes could also score an extra hit the first round.  It’s a close one.

Without going into a detailed analysis, I’m thinking the 5 infantry is actually a little bit better (even though the aa guns COULD be alot better with the benefit of lucky dice), so yeah the price for aa guns should probably be reduced.

One thing I do like about the new aa gun rules is it is a very elegant solution for the problem of capitals falling too easily.

@Kreuzfeld:

@ErwinRommel:

mechs are vital, If I am doing a barbarossa, then germany buys 17-20 mechs on G2 and 10 on G3 and maybe 10 on G4.

I agree they are the reason tanks are dead.

You’ll regret buying only mec when your at moscows gates. I combine it so I have 50/50 mec and tank as Germany.
Tanks far better on the offence than mec.

numbers of units is often more important than combat value, and my main plan for barbarossa is taking the oil, in which case they are perfect.

I dont go for moscow 6/7/8

I go for getting to rostov, taking the middle east while forcing the russians to stand in moscow, then I build arts in stalingrad, rostov and ukraine, and then I attack prolly arounbd round 10-11. difference is, I get the middle east oil much earlier and the mechs are perfect for that. taking stalingrad+cauc + perisa + iraq is worth 24 IPC

If I am going for moscow, then tanks might have a purpose, but I prefer buying 8 art on round 1, then mechs mechs and more mechs. then I can build arts in the ukriane and tank when its too late for arts

oh, and optimal ratio between fodder and punch is usually around 40%, so depending on how many inf/arts you have, 50/50 might be too many tanks for optimal attack capablities

If you’re up against an advanced Allied player, you will have waited too long.  By the time you get around to attacking Moscow, Allies will have Japan well contained and probably control Egypt too, so Axis won’t be able to get the VC win, and will eventually be overwelmed.

This was the problem with Allweneedislove’s original analysis–he probably thought it was optimal to wait till G8 or later to attack Moscow…but by that time Allies can make an impact on other fronts and deny the VC win.

While I agree with you in principle Zhukov, and most of the time the Allies will win if the Axis take too long.

There has been times in games where Moscow has too many Infantry to attack when you get there in turn 6- and the Axis could have already taken Cairo and India.  Then its still a game and a turn 8 take of Moscow could be the winning move (or a win in the Pacific- Japan taking New South Wales and Hawaii if the US concentrates on Europe).

@BJCard:

While I agree with you in principle Zhukov, and most of the time the Allies will win if the Axis take too long.

There has been times in games where Moscow has too many Infantry to attack when you get there in turn 6- and the Axis could have already taken Cairo and India.  Then its still a game and a turn 8 take of Moscow could be the winning move (or a win in the Pacific- Japan taking New South Wales and Hawaii if the US concentrates on Europe).

I definitely agree that if Axis takes Moscow on G8, then they should have an excellent chance of winning the game, assuming they aren’t getting smoked on other fronts, particuarly France and Egypt.

All I’m saying is G8 is not necessarily better than G5, G6, G7 though, particuarly if the 12 inf 2 aa have just arrived, and if the Allies are continuing to fly in aircraft.

Even when Germany can’t take Moscow, tank/mech formations will be able to secure Russia’s hinterland faster, and if Russia decides to try to retreat from Moscow, tank/mech formations are better able to chase them down then pure mech/air.

@Zhukov44:

@BJCard:

While I agree with you in principle Zhukov, and most of the time the Allies will win if the Axis take too long.

There has been times in games where Moscow has too many Infantry to attack when you get there in turn 6- and the Axis could have already taken Cairo and India.  Then its still a game and a turn 8 take of Moscow could be the winning move (or a win in the Pacific- Japan taking New South Wales and Hawaii if the US concentrates on Europe).

I definitely agree that if Axis takes Moscow on G8, then they should have an excellent chance of winning the game, assuming they aren’t getting smoked on other fronts, particuarly France and Egypt.

All I’m saying is G8 is not necessarily better than G5, G6, G7 though, particuarly if the 12 inf 2 aa have just arrived, and if the Allies are continuing to fly in aircraft.

Even when Germany can’t take Moscow, tank/mech formations will be able to secure Russia’s hinterland faster, and if Russia decides to try to retreat from Moscow, tank/mech formations are better able to chase them down then pure mech/air.

Agreed.

@Kreuzfeld:

@ErwinRommel:

mechs are vital, If I am doing a barbarossa, then germany buys 17-20 mechs on G2 and 10 on G3 and maybe 10 on G4.

I agree they are the reason tanks are dead.

You’ll regret buying only mec when your at moscows gates. I combine it so I have 50/50 mec and tank as Germany.
Tanks far better on the offence than mec.

numbers of units is often more important than combat value, and my main plan for barbarossa is taking the oil, in which case they are perfect.

I dont go for moscow 6/7/8

I go for getting to rostov, taking the middle east while forcing the russians to stand in moscow, then I build arts in stalingrad, rostov and ukraine, and then I attack prolly arounbd round 10-11. difference is, I get the middle east oil much earlier and the mechs are perfect for that. taking stalingrad+cauc + perisa + iraq is worth 24 IPC

If I am going for moscow, then tanks might have a purpose, but I prefer buying 8 art on round 1, then mechs mechs and more mechs. then I can build arts in the ukriane and tank when its too late for arts

oh, and optimal ratio between fodder and punch is usually around 40%, so depending on how many inf/arts you have, 50/50 might be too many tanks for optimal attack capablities

With UK’s persia/egypt factories pumping units into the mix, the caucuses will be a slugfest.  When you delay on Moscow, this gives the allies more time to hammer Japan and to get in position to contest and eventually hold normandy/norway.

3 ipc aa guns…., well, that moves india/moscow defense into allies favor greatly.

@ghr2:

3 ipc aa guns…., well, that moves india/moscow defense into allies favor greatly.

Don’t worry.  The rule’s not changing.

Why not allow AA guns to be used as ART in combat? Would make them useful.

Well i like the mechanics of AA guns as they are now, i do not think it would make sense to let them attack along the same reasons that aircraft cannot land in a newly conquered territory.
I do believe 5 is too much, but 3 i think would be too low.
4 would be a better option OR keep them at 5 and let them roll up to 4 AA dice instead of 3.

Cruisers are second only to AA guns when it comes to rarely ever being bought and there being very few situations where one would buy one.
And this flies in the face of WWII naval warfare.
However i do not think the price should be lowered to 11, rather give them a second ability.
BBs and CVs both have 2 abilities, DD and SS only have one but they are cheap.
Let cruisers move 3 spaces regardless of naval bases (they would never move 4), or give them AA dice, or let them conduct ASW as DDs do now.

I think tanks are just right at 6 and i see plenty of pro players purchasing them in league and tournament games. At 5 they were be OP and over purchased.

I do find it hilarious that the OP bought a bunch of tanks right after starting a thread “TANKS ARE STILL DEAD RAWRR!”

And to the guy spamming mech inf, that is a horrible strat in so many ways :P

@Uncrustable:

Well i like the mechanics of AA guns as they are now, i do not think it would make sense to let them attack along the same reasons that aircraft cannot land in a newly conquered territory.
I do believe 5 is too much, but 3 i think would be too low.
4 would be a better option OR keep them at 5 and let them roll up to 4 AA dice instead of 3.

Cruisers are second only to AA guns when it comes to rarely ever being bought and there being very few situations where one would buy one.
And this flies in the face of WWII naval warfare.
However i do not think the price should be lowered to 11, rather give them a second ability.
BBs and CVs both have 2 abilities, DD and SS only have one but they are cheap.
Let cruisers move 3 spaces regardless of naval bases (they would never move 4), or give them AA dice, or let them conduct ASW as DDs do now.

I think tanks are just right at 6 and i see plenty of pro players purchasing them in league and tournament games. At 5 they were be OP and over purchased.

I do find it hilarious that the OP bought a bunch of tanks right after starting a thread “TANKS ARE STILL DEAD RAWRR!”

And to the guy spamming mech inf, that is a horrible strat in so many ways :P

I still think it would be cool to see the AAA get a little more action offensively. When I first heard about the AAA I thought it was going to do something more than it did in previous editions. Additionally I think the “built in” AA that NB, IC and ABs have is an afterthought personally. Wish I’d have been a fly on the wall at the development of the AAA unit design.

Good post, uncrustable, (and I agree with a lot of it) but I’m curious:

Why do you say submarines only have 1 special ability?

Toblerone, I got the feeling that SEVERAL decisions made in the evolution of G40 2nd edition were “afterthoughts”  :-P  :|  :wink:  :-)

@Gamerman01:

Good post, uncrustable, (and I agree with a lot of it) but I’m curious:

Why do you say submarines only have 1 special ability?

I guess i consider ‘being a submarine’ a single ability lol
But i guess they do have both submerge and first strike that is 2. And then DDs cancel both maybe that could also be considered 2 abilities.
Either way cruisers should have more than 1 (bombard)

Now here is something to consider helping out AA purchases: Get rid of ‘built in defense’ for bases/ICs
I agree aswell it does seem like an afterthought. The AA units should represent an extensive network of radar and strategically placed AA batteries. They should cover the entire tt including any bases/ICs

So reduce AAA cost to 4 (or leave at 5 and increase AA dice to 4) and get rid of the built in AA of bases and ICs

@Uncrustable:

@Gamerman01:

Good post, uncrustable, (and I agree with a lot of it) but I’m curious:

Why do you say submarines only have 1 special ability?

I guess i consider ‘being a submarine’ a single ability lol
But i guess they do have both submerge and first strike that is 2. And then DDs cancel both maybe that could also be considered 2 abilities.
Either way cruisers should have more than 1 (bombard)

Now here is something to consider helping out AA purchases: Get rid of ‘built in defense’ for bases/ICs
I agree aswell it does seem like an afterthought. The AA units should represent an extensive network of radar and strategically placed AA batteries. They should cover the entire tt including any bases/ICs

So reduce AAA cost to 4 (or leave at 5 and increase AA dice to 4) and get rid of the built in AA of bases and ICs

Yeah I just feel like AAA units were going to be used differently and then something else was decided. I wouls venture to guess that somewhere in the devolpment phase they planned to have them operate like the Gemans used them in WWII and changed thier mind later.

Duel purpose aa guns,  have each aa gun the ability to choose to shoot at either air, or mechs/tanks.